The defendant is charged [in count __]
with tampering with private communications. The statute defining this offense
reads in pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of tampering
with private communications when, knowing that (he/she) does not have the
consent of the sender or receiver, and being an employee, officer or
representative of a telephone or telegraph corporation, (he/she) knowingly
divulges to another person the contents or nature of a telephonic or telegraphic
communication.

For you to find the defendant guilty
of this charge, the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable
doubt:

Element 1 - Defendant's
positionThe first element is that the
defendant was an employee, officer or representative of a telephone or telegraph
corporation.

Element 2 - Divulged contentsThe second element is that (he/she)
knowingly divulged to another person the contents or nature of a telephonic or
telegraphic communication. A person acts "knowingly"
with respect to conduct or circumstances when (he/she) is aware that (his/her)
conduct is of such nature or that such circumstances exist. <See
Knowledge, Instruction 2.3-3.>

Element 3 - Without consentThe third element is that the
defendant knew that (he/she) did not have the consent of the sender or
receiver. A person does an act "without consent of another person" when
(he/she) lacks such other person's agreement or assent to engage in the act.

Conclusion

In summary, the state must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) the defendant was an employee, officer or
representative of a telephone or telegraph corporation, 2) (he/she) knowingly
divulged to another person the contents or nature of a telephonic or telegraphic
communication, and 3) (he/she) knew that (he/she) did not have the consent of
the sender or receiver.

If you unanimously find that the state
has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime of
tampering with private communications, then you shall find the defendant
guilty. On the other hand, if you unanimously find that the state has failed to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt any of the elements, you shall then find the
defendant not guilty.